UK NPAS discussion: thread Mk 2
Silsoe, the problem (I suspect) is that NPAS will have to appease the CAA about flight following. You partly commented on the problem, in that the 'mids' forces didn't have a dedicated control room - so one could argue, who is the dedicated key holder for safety throughout the launch, transit, prosecution and recovery process, in that instance? There has to be continuity nationally for flight safety/following.
This could be the start of a "swiss cheese" scenario (SMS). It is all very well complying with "flight following" verbatim, so as to tick that AOC box, but in reality how does the AOC holder take responsibility for ensuring that the helicopter flying out of one airbase is fully serviceable in all respects, with that particular crew onboard fully trained and fully qualified to do the task in another region in unfamiliar terrain? NPAS owns the aircraft, another 'force' owns the dispatch authority and another 'force' owns the region where the tasking and communications take place.
God forbid - if a cab stoofed, the CC of W Yorks would get it in the neck as he is the AOC holder, but who cocked up:
NPAS as owners of the a/c.
NPAS as owners for the training/equiping/legislators
Kent as Dispatchers.
CC of the requesting regional force conducting the tasking.
Who actually ensures everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet:
Maintenance/paperwork current for all the cabs nationwide.
Aircrew medicals current/CRM/LPC's etc etc
Training: sufficient night trng/mountains/IF etc
Fatigue: shift patterns / Callout availability etc
Who (in dispatch) assesses endurance/ right aircraft for the job/weather/diversions/future tasking/comms.
Please, please will someone apply some common sense here and atleast offer sound technical advice for applicants to become a dispatching facility????
This could be the start of a "swiss cheese" scenario (SMS). It is all very well complying with "flight following" verbatim, so as to tick that AOC box, but in reality how does the AOC holder take responsibility for ensuring that the helicopter flying out of one airbase is fully serviceable in all respects, with that particular crew onboard fully trained and fully qualified to do the task in another region in unfamiliar terrain? NPAS owns the aircraft, another 'force' owns the dispatch authority and another 'force' owns the region where the tasking and communications take place.
God forbid - if a cab stoofed, the CC of W Yorks would get it in the neck as he is the AOC holder, but who cocked up:
NPAS as owners of the a/c.
NPAS as owners for the training/equiping/legislators
Kent as Dispatchers.
CC of the requesting regional force conducting the tasking.
Who actually ensures everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet:
Maintenance/paperwork current for all the cabs nationwide.
Aircrew medicals current/CRM/LPC's etc etc
Training: sufficient night trng/mountains/IF etc
Fatigue: shift patterns / Callout availability etc
Who (in dispatch) assesses endurance/ right aircraft for the job/weather/diversions/future tasking/comms.
Please, please will someone apply some common sense here and atleast offer sound technical advice for applicants to become a dispatching facility????
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chiltern's have operated for years a successful semi regional system. Three forces, five counties, two bases, with four control rooms. TFO's allowed to be responsible for the deployment of the aircraft.
All control rooms have a dedicated scramble line (land telephone) and one hailing talkgroup for all three forces. Crews's would be aware which aircraft was nearest and most effective.
This is local control with local knowledge making best use of the resource and deploying to incident where air support can enhance the situation using TFO;s experience.
All this control room will be is a very expensive call forwarding/delaying room.
All control rooms have a dedicated scramble line (land telephone) and one hailing talkgroup for all three forces. Crews's would be aware which aircraft was nearest and most effective.
This is local control with local knowledge making best use of the resource and deploying to incident where air support can enhance the situation using TFO;s experience.
All this control room will be is a very expensive call forwarding/delaying room.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
You partly commented on the problem, in that the 'mids' forces didn't have a dedicated control room - so one could argue, who is the dedicated key holder for safety throughout the launch, transit, prosecution and recovery process, in that instance?
The NPASCR, as I understand, will be there to allocate aircraft to tasks in the most efficient way based on ac availability and positioning. Alfie15 sums up quite nicely a system already in place, similar to other parts of the country, that works very well.
The mention of flight following in the Kent proposal seems to be put in there as a filler.
30. It is a requirement of the Police Air Operations Manual that a force control room ‘flight follow’ any police aircraft operated within their force area.
31. For the purposes of NPAS this will require Kent Air Ops to take responsibility for flight following ALL aircraft, regardless of the force are in which they are operating.
31. For the purposes of NPAS this will require Kent Air Ops to take responsibility for flight following ALL aircraft, regardless of the force are in which they are operating.
As far as flight following goes in the Mids region there are specific procedures in place to monitor the launch and recovery flight phases especially for those based 'in the sticks'. As for the other phases, in this region we have available;
24 hour ATCU's - Birmingham, East Midlands, Brize Norton, Luton, Robin Hood, Manchester, London Information/Military.
Non 24 hour (stc) - Coventry, Wittering, Waddington, Cranwell, Scampton, Halfpenny Green, Husbands Bosworth, Shobdon, Wellsbourne, Gloucester, Oxford, Cosford, Shawbury, Nottingham, Leicester, Gamston etc, etc.
Non ATC net - 'common/hailing' frequency, FCR requesting air support, Local controllers, operating unit.
As we can see, there are plenty of 'flight followers' around to use and IMHO it would be safer, as in para 30, that the FCR requesting air support flight follow.
For Kent to take on the potential flight following responsibility of all the nations air support at the same time raises one simple question.... on which radio will they flight follow each of NPAS's 24 aircraft ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
more importantly..what will the "system" be for deployment..
As it stands, if the phone rings and the control room present us with a job that is clearly, inappropriate, inaccessible, poorly resourced, or zero potential of success, we simply say "no" and thank them for their call and provide some feedback as to why we're not coming..
What I wonder will the future hold... expecially when the phone rings with "weve pinged the mispers phone and he/she is definitely at (easting,northings) location"..
Will we have the discretion to say NO... your job is pants, come back to us when you have done x,y,and z...
As it stands, if the phone rings and the control room present us with a job that is clearly, inappropriate, inaccessible, poorly resourced, or zero potential of success, we simply say "no" and thank them for their call and provide some feedback as to why we're not coming..
What I wonder will the future hold... expecially when the phone rings with "weve pinged the mispers phone and he/she is definitely at (easting,northings) location"..
Will we have the discretion to say NO... your job is pants, come back to us when you have done x,y,and z...
Will we have the discretion to say NO... your job is pants, come back to us when you have done x,y,and z
The only useful purpose that the control room serves is to make the various Force incident logs available(even if they are mostly illegible), apart from GMP's antiquated DOS type version.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
17. Kent Air Ops would only be responsible for deploying the aircraft and the flight following function for aircraft safety.
30. It is a requirement of the Police Air Operations Manual that a force control room ‘flight follow’ any police aircraft operated within their force area.
'When possible, a pilot shall maintain communication with an ATSU and make it aware of routeing, operating area and future intentions, so that timely overdue action may be taken, if necessary.
.
Should communication not be possible because of terrain factors, the pilot shall establish and maintain communication with the relevant police control room.'
It does say in Sect 2 chap 4, para 2.2;
'the aircraft commander shall ensure... the FCR or other designated co-ordination agency is aware of the aircrafts whereabouts at all times', but nowhere can I find the part that the proposal tells us; "It is a requirement of the Police Air Operations Manual that a force control room ‘flight follow’ any police aircraft operated within their force area".
Perhaps whoever looked at this for the proposal found Chapt 2's sentence on flight following and ignored the whole Chapter on it.
So IMHO, in reference to the responsibilities of the NPASCR (whoever or wherever that may be), that now only leaves the deployment issues, or have we already covered that one?
If we are talking about genuine flight following, for aircraft safety reasons - not tactical/operational - then why can't something like Skytrac be used?
SkyTrac.ca - Markets
SkyTrac.ca - Markets
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: upyours
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight following is not the same as a (Basic) Service from London Info or an ATCU. A service from an ATCU is well and good in the West Midlands, or the like, but does not fit the bill for the rural areas like the East of England during late or night shifts when there is little if any ATCU cover. London Info will give a service but not the regular opps normal that is required to ensure a timely reaction to an aircraft being overdue. Therefore it is essential that lip service is not paid to this vital safety system.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
If we are talking about genuine flight following, for aircraft safety reasons - not tactical/operational - then why can't something like Skytrac be used?
Flight Following
SkyTrac’s comprehensive flight following solutions comprise on-board and ground-based components. On board the aircraft, the DSAT or ISAT automatically obtain position data from the GPS constellation and automatically transmit this information to the ground using the Iridium constellation. Position reports are sent at intervals that can be configured by the operator. The transmission of these reports happens without the need for intervention by the crew.
On the ground, position reports are sent from the Iridium gateway to the SkyTrac data centre from where they are forwarded to SkyTrac’s customers.
To turn the raw data of position reports into useful information, SkyTrac provides its customers with powerful software tools for monitoring/tracking, mapping and reporting:
SkyTrac’s comprehensive flight following solutions comprise on-board and ground-based components. On board the aircraft, the DSAT or ISAT automatically obtain position data from the GPS constellation and automatically transmit this information to the ground using the Iridium constellation. Position reports are sent at intervals that can be configured by the operator. The transmission of these reports happens without the need for intervention by the crew.
On the ground, position reports are sent from the Iridium gateway to the SkyTrac data centre from where they are forwarded to SkyTrac’s customers.
To turn the raw data of position reports into useful information, SkyTrac provides its customers with powerful software tools for monitoring/tracking, mapping and reporting:
IMHO safe flight following in this type of operation can only be obtained by means of 2 way radio communication, whether it is with an ATSU, control room or bobby on the beat.
I don't think anyone is suggesting Satracs 2 way communication ISAT solution x24 ...are they ?£$?
SkyTrac.ca - ISAT
Besides, who do you think will have to pay for the certification for the 135, 902 or future types?
SkyTrac.ca - Aircraft Types
On a more technical note;
SATCOM - More than the name implies | HeliMx
Since helicopters do not normally fly global missions, you might wonder why a helicopter operator would want to invest in the cost of such a system when so many other types of communications are available. In this instance, there is more than just voice and text communications involved. There is also the ability to track the helicopter’s progress and pinpoint its location anywhere in the world. The following is a telephone interview with Shane Meluck of SkyTrac Systems in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
The most common symptom found in helicopter installations is the antenna cable is not connected tight enough, and due to the helicopter’s high vibration environment, the cable has worked itself loose.
Like most systems that are transmitting and receiving RF energy, the local surroundings play a part in how well the system can transmit and receive. Mountains, deep valleys and proximity to metal structures such as a hangar all play a part in how well the system performs.
App Store - SkyWeb Mobile
If the crew have time, there is an emergency switch which alerts the ground station and increases the polling rate. If they land safely without having done so - or for other reasons - they can use the satphone function and, if neither apply, there need to be good overdue procedures in place. An example of poor flight following of a skytrac equipped aircraft is the 76 C++ accident in the GoM in 2009. I had to land 'in a hurry' a few years ago in a fairly remote area, and without the skytrac to a) communicate and b) give our position it would have taken a lot longer to retrieve us (thanks 7th Flight
)
)
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
F4F
I would have to ask why isn't a service other than Basic being requested? A basic service gives you autonomy the others give you someone watching over you.
I understand what you are saying, but is there a problem over there asking for a Traffic or Deconfliction service or simply saying you will call on the half hour?
Besides, going back to what system we are all using now, who are you talking to when out on a task?
If I may refer to the PAOM "Should communication not be possible because of terrain factors, the pilot shall establish and maintain communication with the relevant police control room."
Flight following is not the same as a (Basic) Service from London Info or an ATCU. A service from an ATCU is well and good in the West Midlands, or the like, but does not fit the bill for the rural areas like the East of England during late or night shifts when there is little if any ATCU cover. London Info will give a service but not the regular opps normal that is required to ensure a timely reaction to an aircraft being overdue. Therefore it is essential that lip service is not paid to this vital safety system.
I understand what you are saying, but is there a problem over there asking for a Traffic or Deconfliction service or simply saying you will call on the half hour?
Besides, going back to what system we are all using now, who are you talking to when out on a task?
If I may refer to the PAOM "Should communication not be possible because of terrain factors, the pilot shall establish and maintain communication with the relevant police control room."
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
If the crew have time, there is an emergency switch which alerts the ground station and increases the polling rate. If they land safely without having done so - or for other reasons - they can use the satphone function and, if neither apply, there need to be good overdue procedures in place.
If the crew have time they can activate the already fitted ELB or call on 121.5Mhz (if you're operating in an area with no ATCU cover shouldn't it be dialled up?)
If they land safely they can use an already carried mobile or handheld. (PAOM Pt 2)
If neither apply the ATCU or FCR that they have been i contact with should activate SAR. (PAOM Pt 1)
I appreciate different force areas at present operate differently, in different terrains, with different facilities available, but before spending millions and going down the `Fire Control route' why not give the present no cost system a trial and if it doesn't work gradually introduce an NPASCR?
Still on the fence here trying to save money and maintain flight safety rather than spend money and reduce it
Sid,
On our aircraft, the handheld cradle fit terminal for our radio system already sends our position to one of the forces command and control systems - showing exactly where we are every 15 seconds and we have already proved that in the event of a mishap, the last location that the set transmitted will continue to be displayed until it is either removed or updated by a new "ping". The problem we have found is that nobody actually bothers to look at at it and the force IT security officer won't allow the data to be shared with any other force on the grounds of "security" The same problem that prevents either of our forces accessing the latest information on the job they want us to go to.
The most effective and most cost effective system with the greatest amount of experience and training for co-ordinating police air support assets is already in place and has been for some time. As current and active practioners, both you and I know it, - but ACPO know nothing unless they've paid somebody else a small fortune to prove it.
The last thing we need is yet another box of clever things adding more weight to the aircraft.
On our aircraft, the handheld cradle fit terminal for our radio system already sends our position to one of the forces command and control systems - showing exactly where we are every 15 seconds and we have already proved that in the event of a mishap, the last location that the set transmitted will continue to be displayed until it is either removed or updated by a new "ping". The problem we have found is that nobody actually bothers to look at at it and the force IT security officer won't allow the data to be shared with any other force on the grounds of "security"
The same problem that prevents either of our forces accessing the latest information on the job they want us to go to.The most effective and most cost effective system with the greatest amount of experience and training for co-ordinating police air support assets is already in place and has been for some time. As current and active practioners, both you and I know it, - but ACPO know nothing unless they've paid somebody else a small fortune to prove it.
The last thing we need is yet another box of clever things adding more weight to the aircraft.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kent NPAS Control Room.
Why is it needed ?
What benefit(s) will it bring for forces - such as those in the Central (Midlands) Region, ( and others ),
where there is already an efficient Despatch system operating amongst the four separate ASU's,
and covering 8 different Police forces, where the force in who's area the incident occurs takes on the Flight Following / Overdue Actions procedures ?
How can one single Control Room, wherever it is geographically placed in the Country, possibly hope to be as efficient as exisiting procedures ?
How can one single ADDITIONAL Control Room, with it's EXTRA STAFF,
possibly hope to make cost savings when compared with exisiting procedures using exisitng staff ?
Can anyone tell me what single benefit there would be in having a National Police Air Support Unit Control Room,
other than possibly protecting the jobs of some existing Control Room staff,
who might otherwise have been made redundant under the general Policing budget cuts ?
While thinking about that one, and thinking about how those proposed cost savings might be achieved,
I seem to recall someone saying that the "up to £15 million" anticipated savings,
would not be made for about 5 years ( I stand to be corrected ).
The cynic in me says that 5 years will be when the Police Officers seconded to NPAS,
( those that have chosen to stay in their role and accept the Thousands of Pounds pay cut for no longer being regarded as "Specialist" ),
have their secondment terminated, and may find themselves with no Police job to return to .......
Et Voila - Instant savings - experienced Police Officer Air Observers made redundant,
and replaced by Group 4 Security Observers reducing the previous wages bill.
Ball park figures ( plucked mainly out of thin air purely to demonstrate the principle ) :
22 ASU's with 8 Police officers at £36,500 = £6,424,000
22 ASU's with eight G4S Observers at £20,000 = £3,520,000
= £2,904,000 savings per year, multiplied by 5 years = £14,520,000 - that's "up to £15 million" isn't it ?
Why is it needed ?
What benefit(s) will it bring for forces - such as those in the Central (Midlands) Region, ( and others ),
where there is already an efficient Despatch system operating amongst the four separate ASU's,
and covering 8 different Police forces, where the force in who's area the incident occurs takes on the Flight Following / Overdue Actions procedures ?
How can one single Control Room, wherever it is geographically placed in the Country, possibly hope to be as efficient as exisiting procedures ?
How can one single ADDITIONAL Control Room, with it's EXTRA STAFF,
possibly hope to make cost savings when compared with exisiting procedures using exisitng staff ?
Can anyone tell me what single benefit there would be in having a National Police Air Support Unit Control Room,
other than possibly protecting the jobs of some existing Control Room staff,
who might otherwise have been made redundant under the general Policing budget cuts ?
While thinking about that one, and thinking about how those proposed cost savings might be achieved,
I seem to recall someone saying that the "up to £15 million" anticipated savings,
would not be made for about 5 years ( I stand to be corrected ).
The cynic in me says that 5 years will be when the Police Officers seconded to NPAS,
( those that have chosen to stay in their role and accept the Thousands of Pounds pay cut for no longer being regarded as "Specialist" ),
have their secondment terminated, and may find themselves with no Police job to return to .......
Et Voila - Instant savings - experienced Police Officer Air Observers made redundant,
and replaced by Group 4 Security Observers reducing the previous wages bill.
Ball park figures ( plucked mainly out of thin air purely to demonstrate the principle ) :
22 ASU's with 8 Police officers at £36,500 = £6,424,000
22 ASU's with eight G4S Observers at £20,000 = £3,520,000
= £2,904,000 savings per year, multiplied by 5 years = £14,520,000 - that's "up to £15 million" isn't it ?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: upyours
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I may refer to the PAOM "Should communication not be possible because of terrain factors, the pilot shall establish and maintain communication with the relevant police control room."
Why ask for a different/greater service? It does not give 20 min opps normal calls that one receives now, and does the "contract" with London Info, in the rural east, allow one to ask for such add services? I stand by to be educated.
I suppose that if it aint broke dont fix it is the mantra I am suggesting.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Flight Following
Well I guess this is one tune on the hymn sheet that we all seem to be singing.
Just to emphasise, SkyTrac will have to be certified and fitted to the 27 UK Police Helicopters at what I imagine will be some considerable cost. It is not a bit of carry on kit as has been suggested somewhere out there
Of course it is already certified for the Dyfed Powys cab, but according to the plan, that is going
Just out of interest, with the earlier reference of the Flatlands to the East in mind, how do North Wales, Dyfed Powys and Scotland deal with flight following on lates/nights?
Just to emphasise, SkyTrac will have to be certified and fitted to the 27 UK Police Helicopters at what I imagine will be some considerable cost. It is not a bit of carry on kit as has been suggested somewhere out there
Of course it is already certified for the Dyfed Powys cab, but according to the plan, that is going
Just out of interest, with the earlier reference of the Flatlands to the East in mind, how do North Wales, Dyfed Powys and Scotland deal with flight following on lates/nights?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bedford
Age: 56
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Chiltern system works exceptionally well (as a key user now, who used to be involved in the police aviation world). One a2g talk group across the three forces ( five counties) allows both aircraft to be hailed either in the air or on the ground, and also allows the Oscar ones to negotiate with each other in real time on those rare occasions where there is conflict (the crew have the final call). Also a scramble line to both bases and the three command and control systems in each base allow jobs to be flagged up for review in real time. No national control room required.
I'm not sure why Npas couldn't use a similar regional model, perhaps with six or seven county wide ( not force) hailing talk groups. The borders would need to overlap but the crews and Oscar 1s could manage conflicting taskings. This would take the central control room out of the picture saving both money and time....
I'm not sure why Npas couldn't use a similar regional model, perhaps with six or seven county wide ( not force) hailing talk groups. The borders would need to overlap but the crews and Oscar 1s could manage conflicting taskings. This would take the central control room out of the picture saving both money and time....
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pitofrost,
I think you've just described what NPAS/KENT are planning.
Each region would require a dedicated dispatcher/flight follower to cope with up to 4 aircraft being dispatched, taking off/landing and making flight following calls. 6 regions would require 6 controllers (plus VDU breaks!) and a supervisor per shift. 2 or 3 shifts, plus a shift off and holiday/course etc.
Is it a feature that 'local' forces will be withdrawing their flight following and dispatch functions due to (a) CAA mandate via the PAOC, or (b) they're paying NPAS for a service so why continue to tie up an 'unpaid' (by NPAS) controller position when money saving is top of the list.
Sid, have a look left and right along that fence and you'll see a lot of us looking back at you
I think you've just described what NPAS/KENT are planning.
Each region would require a dedicated dispatcher/flight follower to cope with up to 4 aircraft being dispatched, taking off/landing and making flight following calls. 6 regions would require 6 controllers (plus VDU breaks!) and a supervisor per shift. 2 or 3 shifts, plus a shift off and holiday/course etc.
Is it a feature that 'local' forces will be withdrawing their flight following and dispatch functions due to (a) CAA mandate via the PAOC, or (b) they're paying NPAS for a service so why continue to tie up an 'unpaid' (by NPAS) controller position when money saving is top of the list.
Sid, have a look left and right along that fence and you'll see a lot of us looking back at you